What's up with Nintendo under-supplying their products?
- Thread starter Zhukov
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I remember talk of this going back to the days of the Nintendo DS and probably a lot earlier. A common claim is that Nintendo deliberately lowers the supply of their products in order to artificially increase demand or delay market saturation. I'm not an economist so maybe there's some nuance there that I don't understand, but that really just seems like an overcomplicated business strategy. Wouldn't it be better to saturate the market with the console as early as possible so that you've guaranteed a base of people who will buy games for that console throughout the console's life cycle? And while increased demand is good, that does nothing for your company if there's no way to satisfy that demand.
I think the real reason is that Nintendo, compared to Microsoft and Sony, is a small company that doesn't have the same ability to take losses on console sales and absorb risk. The strategy for Microsoft and Sony has always been to sell the console at a loss and make up the cost by selling games, but that's a strategy that carries some risk and those companies have orders of magnitude more resources with which to reduce that risk and they won't be at risk of going out of business if a major new product lineup fails. Nintendo, on the other hand, depends on making a profit on each sale and that means they have to be more risk-averse, especially given that some of their flagship products (Gamecube and Wii U come to mind) have not been as successful as they would have liked.
So what that means is that the safe thing to do is to underestimate demand in the early stages of the console's life cycle so that you don't run the risk of having produced more consoles than you can sell.
I think the real reason is that Nintendo, compared to Microsoft and Sony, is a small company that doesn't have the same ability to take losses on console sales and absorb risk. The strategy for Microsoft and Sony has always been to sell the console at a loss and make up the cost by selling games, but that's a strategy that carries some risk and those companies have orders of magnitude more resources with which to reduce that risk and they won't be at risk of going out of business if a major new product lineup fails. Nintendo, on the other hand, depends on making a profit on each sale and that means they have to be more risk-averse, especially given that some of their flagship products (Gamecube and Wii U come to mind) have not been as successful as they would have liked.
So what that means is that the safe thing to do is to underestimate demand in the early stages of the console's life cycle so that you don't run the risk of having produced more consoles than you can sell.
They dont need the money. It's a PR stunt.
Take amibos, the nintendo switch and the nes classic. Certain amibos sell out instantly, the nintendo switch sell out as soon as they are available, nes classic soul out instantly.
So in a logical world, consumers would get pissed and not buy things from nintendo because they obviously dont care about consumers right? Wrong.
What they have successfully done, is ensure that any future products they sell, will sell out instsntly. Why? Because people are going to be so afraid to miss out, there will be mass product buying as soon as it hits the shelves. People are going to be so afraid to miss out on the next new cool nintendo product, that people aret going to be going out in droves to get them.
Now imagine this as a long term trend. Now, they aren't making as much money as they could. In the longterm though, regardless of how much stock they manufacture, their products well sell instantly because everyone will be afraid to miss out. So wave one of the product will sell out instantly, then wave 2 and so on and so forth. For everything they sell in the future.
Thats my theory
Take amibos, the nintendo switch and the nes classic. Certain amibos sell out instantly, the nintendo switch sell out as soon as they are available, nes classic soul out instantly.
So in a logical world, consumers would get pissed and not buy things from nintendo because they obviously dont care about consumers right? Wrong.
What they have successfully done, is ensure that any future products they sell, will sell out instsntly. Why? Because people are going to be so afraid to miss out, there will be mass product buying as soon as it hits the shelves. People are going to be so afraid to miss out on the next new cool nintendo product, that people aret going to be going out in droves to get them.
Now imagine this as a long term trend. Now, they aren't making as much money as they could. In the longterm though, regardless of how much stock they manufacture, their products well sell instantly because everyone will be afraid to miss out. So wave one of the product will sell out instantly, then wave 2 and so on and so forth. For everything they sell in the future.
Thats my theory
I think people really use "broken" way too much as hyperbole, I have confidence in buying any game day 1 and being able to play it without any major issues. Now, PC games definitely have more issues. Also, there's a lot more moving parts in games due to the open world craze that you just can't find everything. Especially something like a Bethesda game where you have so many NPCs and quests interacting that it's impossible to find everything although I think Bethesda is a shit developer anyways with regards to their engine and just bad coding. There's probably only a handful of AAA games on consoles that were legitimately pretty bad at launch.kilenem said:
The online pass thing was a fad that everyone basically did, it was stupid but it really didn't impact gamers that much. Nintendo probably would've joined in if they had a legit online service. I mean GameStop gave gamers the codes when they bought used anyways. The whole thing was just stupid really. Outside of some F2P games, I don't think there's any game that's pay2win. Nintendo's whole Youtube copyright BS probably effects more gamers than the online pass did.
You didn't need a legit online service, you could not access catwoman's missions with out the Batman Arkham city's online pass, some games were missing that pass and these online passes had expiration dates. Correct me if im wrong gamestop only gave the online passes out because some games were missing the codes, gamestop didn't give those passes for every game. In multiple battlefield games you can buy upgrades to weapons, and vehicles in stead of earning them through normal play, this also true for some COD games. You can either put in hours of work or buy a unfair advantage. Also Battlefield 3 had the stupid situation where EA brought out rented servers decreased the number EA servers. If you were to beating the owner of the server he could kick you. How does Nintendo's youtube policy negatively affect you from playing a game.Phoenixmgs said:
I don't shop at GameStop but I recall seeing stories like this [http://kotaku.com/5849828/dont-fret-used-gamers-gamestop-has-catwoman-codes-for-preowned-arkham-city-purchasers] during that time. Paying to skip the Skinner box mechanics is not pay2win. No shooter that's not F2P has a very lengthy unlock system in place anyways. By the time you learn all the maps and get acquainted to all the minor changes from the last game, you'll probably have just about everything unlocked anyways. I recall a friend having to do some stupid shit to level his plane skills or whatever in BF3, stupid but not pay2win. Rented servers have pros and cons, but you don't have to play on them either. Being able to kick people is a needed feature though, it allows players to make custom game modes and then kick people that go around not playing properly ruining everyone else's fun. MGO2 is my favorite online shooter, I'm fully versed in hosts kicking players for legit or not legit reasons. I didn't say Nintendo's Youtube policy negatively affects my ability to play a game, but it does affect me as a gamer by not getting content and info about Nintendo games because of their policy. Whereas the online pass fiasco just made me waste a few seconds entering in a code here and there.kilenem said:
My bad it wasn't just because the codes where missing but that is still like two games out of the rest that were doing it.Phoenixmgs said:
EA had to go back and increased the amount of EA servers because people didn't like playing on the custom servers because of just being randomly kicked. Instead of making it so you have to pay to unlock something why not just make it free? That is why its pay to win. EA created a artificial barrier that they could've removed for free.
How come you can't get info about Nintendo games, I believe Nintendo has stop taken down videos, from my understanding Nintendo just takes the motorization away from the video. Sony took down a early No man sky video's because it made the game look bad but Review embargoes are something most gamers accept. You can also just go to another website where they would have the info.
COD4 started or at least popularized the XP and unlocking of stuff in online shooters and people LIKED unlocking stuff, even reviewers said how great it was. Not me, I find it dumb and just a lame Skinner box mechanic but that has been scientifically proven as effective for the majority of humans, thus it works. It's why people still play WoW. If you are not going to get monetization for covering game XYZ, but you will get monetization for covering game ABC, which game do you think will get covered? Review embargoes are GOOD for gamers. If there isn't an embargo, then reviewers rush to finish games to beat everyone with the 1st review. How is someone rushing through a game going to yield good and accurate opinions about the game? Also, Nintendo jumped onto the "Season Pass" bandwagon, you think they wouldn't have jumped on the "Online Pass" bandwagon if they actually had an legit online service when that was going on?kilenem said:
Locking something behind experience is not the same thing as locking something behind a paywall. COD 4 did not allow oyu to buy attachments with real life cash rather then earn them. Again it doesn't take a legit online service to hide something behind a paywall. Capcom is infamous for selling on disc DLC. Rushed games that later require a huge day one patch are not good for gamers. Its one of the worst things about modern gaming.Phoenixmgs said:
Allowing people to skip Skinner box mechanics is not pay2win. Like I said, shooters allow for rather quickly unlocking of guns, perks, etc. so much so there's usually a "prestige" option to do it all again and again and again. Amiibos are on-disc DLC [https://gamingreinvented.com/nintendoarticles/amiibo-disc-dlc-done-worse/], something Nintendo would NEVER DO!!! I've never couldn't play a game because of a Day 1 patch, you can still play while the patch is downloading.kilenem said:
Battlefield doesn't have a prestige system. Why not just make the perk unlocks for vehicles and weapons free to access verses to putting it behind pay and experience wall.Phoenixmgs said:
I can't read the article, the article is gone from the link, Amiibos are different then DLC just because its Physical, you aren't buying a digital license. Which is a huge problem with DLC in general because its tied to one user. Although Sony and Nintendo allow you to access DLC that is downloaded to a system even if its tied to a different account inselect situations. Your friend can log into there PSN account on your system and just download the DLC, this was true for PSP and PS3, They sort of patched this on the VITA but correct me if Im wrong, I don't think you can do it with PS4 and again correct me if Im wrong. Nintendo has the thing where can sometimes access games from the previous owner of the system on the 3ds and Wii U. The Switch's account system is like the Xbox's now though, I wish it was like Sony's PS3 and PSP policy which was awesome.
Since amiibos are physical you can borrow a friends amiibo or go the bootlegging route. Which is buying nfc cards or chips for like a 1 or a 1.50, buying a power save device that allows you to rewrite amiibos and comes with a re writable NFC device for 25 dollars or you can buy the N2 Elite a device that can save up to 200 amiibo data and is rewriteable for 60. Yes all toys to life devices are asinine and provide very little to if anything to improve a game play experience but they are not worse then DLC which is sort of locked to one account and its locked to the system that you buy it on. I've bought DLC twice because of this, Yes you can work around some access to some DLC in some situations, I've done it for Borderlands 2 but you can't do it reliably.
I rented Resistance 3 to see if it was good but it had a 22 minute day one patch so I never bought it because didn't see how a game with a 22 minute day one patch could be good. You might not be able to play a game because of day one patch but it sure as hell sucks the fun out of it.
Because people actually like Skinner box mechanics and they just work.kilenem said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c